Do younger gamers expect too much?

[Yellonet]

I'm not going to be too immersed with 2d sprites and the lack of a Y-Axis.

Z-axis?

The feeling of interactivity with your environment can be increased tenfold with the use of physics, thus enhancing the gameplay experience. There is an undeniable need to stay current in graphics.

Technically, physics are not graphics. But yeah.. you're right.

I don't think that younger gamers can be specifically blamed for this need for increased eye-candy.

Nope... without new, hardware demanding games you'd never have to buy a new computer. It would spell death for the hardware industry.

Let's face it. There was a big difference between Space Invaders and Doom. The same applies to the pastelle environments of Super Mario to the lush 3d-in-2d look of Donkey Kong Country. We've been brought up in a time where games are always looking better and better and technology is improving at an extremely rapid rate. Because of this kind of environment, we expect a new title to be eye-poppingly gorgeous, and the next one after it to look even better.

The Super Mario games are made to look like they do.. "pastelly".
We get new and "better" looking games as the computers can handle more, we get new computers because the old ones can't handle the new games.

But graphics are not key to a games success in terms of quality. Video, audio, and story are all important. But it's the gameplay that truly matters. If I'm having fun, then I can ignore inadequacies in other aspects. If I'm not having fun... Well, I won't even bother any more. I believe this is something most gamers, regardless of age, believe.

It's true that graphics are not as important as for example good control. But it is also true that bad graphics can, and in some cases will severely, degrade the gameplay, different games need different graphics. A flight simulator for instance has very different needs in terms of graphics than a fast paced FPS.

It's also important to point out that there is a huge difference between bad graphics and low-tech graphics. You could have absolutely superb graphics on a 2Mb game with no 3D effects, and totally worthless-piece-of-shit graphics in a DX9 game with all the latest effects.

But this generation has born some overly-critical gamers that are content with bitching and moaning at anything that isn't state-of-the-art. You'll see these people blatantly ignore physics, modelling, and great texture work just so they can complain about shadows. Or perhaps throw a shitstorm when there's a lighting bug or a clipping error.

I don't really think this has changed that much... there always was and always will be people who cares more about graphics than "total game experience".

These people have lost the idea of what a game actually is.

I've been thinking this the last 10 years... some things never change :cheers:

 

[Parrot of doom]

As for the old gameplay > graphics argument, well... that's subjective. If HL2 had vector graphics or quake quality textures, would it still receive 97% reviews, and would you still want to play it as much?

You're basing your example on the technology available today. If the graphics you mention were the technical limit, then yes, it probably would receive such reviews, just as the original HL did.

 

[merc]

man i support you fully, a lot of these people are just whining way too much and they could never in their lifetime make a game anywhere near as good in graphics as half life 2...

-merc

 

[dreten707]

well im ok with hl2's graphics but if i buy somethin i want it to be good its like buying a computer and you go to the store and they say sorry you will recieve the motherboard next week...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think that I actually started to expect too much as I got older.

I used to play anything.
Nowadays, I'm slightly dissapointed when a game isn't HL-level good.

 

[Annihilator_91]

The graphics of HL2 are the best ever seen in a game, and graphics do matter, to a certain extent. The Gameplay is also very important, more important than graphics. But admit Parrot that it would be dissappointing if HL2 had the same graphics as HL1....

 

[otomo]

Anyone who played UO knows that graphics < gameplay.

 

[Krusty]

Sensible World of Soccer still the best footie game ever.

Oh how I miss my Amiga. KO2 was class aswell...

You heard that Jon Hare from Sensible Software and one of the Bitmap Brothers have started a new company?
Can't wait to see what they come up with, although it looks like they're aiming for phone based games initially

 

[metal6501]

im 35 and a alcoholic only jokin but i loved jetpac on spectrum love all games

 

[Absinthe]

The Super Mario games are made to look like they do.. "pastelly".

There's still a technical difference/advance between Super Mario and Donkey Kong Country, regardless of how a game was meant to look.

We get new and "better" looking games as the computers can handle more, we get new computers because the old ones can't handle the new games.

...Did I argue against this?

It's true that graphics are not as important as for example good control. But it is also true that bad graphics can, and in some cases will severely, degrade the gameplay, different games need different graphics. A flight simulator for instance has very different needs in terms of graphics than a fast paced FPS.

I've agreed that that bad graphics can hurt gameplay.

And as for your flight simulator example, that's another position I agree with. That's why I think it's ridiculous that some people expect uber amazing lighting when it comes to HL2. It doesn't fit the kind of game it is, so it will of course take a backseat.

I don't really think this has changed that much... there always was and always will be people who cares more about graphics than "total game experience".

Well, of course there will always be those kinds of people. The abundance of such people, however, is different. When it comes to older games, the level of visual quality is virtually the same. But since the video game industry has evolved and grown since then, you're getting more developers, more games, and more technology. There's room for a much larger difference between games in terms of visual quality. And with new "standards" being created on an almost yearly basis, you're going to get far more criticism from a younger audience.

Then again, as somebody else pointed out, it may have more to do with the fact that, with a more widespread access to the internet and other forms of communication, it's just easier to voice such complaints.

Any way, my post is merely speculation, so it really could be any reason.

 

[Yellonet]

There's still a technical difference/advance between Super Mario and Donkey Kong Country, regardless of how a game was meant to look.



...Did I argue against this?



I've agreed that that bad graphics can hurt gameplay.

And as for your flight simulator example, that's another position I agree with. That's why I think it's ridiculous that some people expect uber amazing lighting when it comes to HL2. It doesn't fit the kind of game it is, so it will of course take a backseat.




Well, of course there will always be those kinds of people. The abundance of such people, however, is different. When it comes to older games, the level of visual quality is virtually the same. But since the video game industry has evolved and grown since then, you're getting more developers, more games, and more technology. There's room for a much larger difference between games in terms of visual quality. And with new "standards" being created on an almost yearly basis, you're going to get far more criticism from a younger audience.

Then again, as somebody else pointed out, it may have more to do with the fact that, with a more widespread access to the internet and other forms of communication, it's just easier to voice such complaints.

Any way, my post is merely speculation, so it really could be any reason.

I wasn't out to get you, you know
Not this time at least

 

[joepjens]

Age discrimination.

I am 17, so still a young one, and the only thin I expect is a cool game that enjoys me.

At the moment I play ut2k4, it looks nice, well if you turn the settings up, but not really good or anything. I care more about the gameplay and the number of fps I get.

 

[tobe]

I'm 32. That means I was leaving school just as many of the people posting here were being born. Or even conceived!

Anyhow, I see many threads arguing about the graphics in HL2, and for the life of me I can't understand why so many people get obsessed with this. I remember playing Space Invaders in my local arcade machine, when I needed a box to see the screen. I remember being flabbergasted by the coloured aliens, and not being bothered that much when I realised it was just coloured sellophane strips glued to the back of the plastic shield that protected the screen. What was important was that shooting aliens was fun.

I went right through the ranks, Commodore PET, Vic-20, Tandy TRS-80, C64, Amiga, 486, Pentium, Pentium2, AMD K5, etc etc. Anyone here remember playing Ultima Underworlds 1 and 2? Remember the tiny little screen you moved around in, the rest of the view being taken up by icons and chat windows?

Those who think that graphics matter, please, take it from somebody who has been playing games a great deal longer than you. They don't. What matters is playability. Thats the essence of a game. Football matches would look great if naked page-3 models were playing, but the game itself would be crap, and after a while nobody would pay to see it. Computer games are just the same. You can have as much bling on the screen as you like, but if it doesn't play well, it will very quickly become forgotten.

From the look of the Binks I've seen, it seems that Valve also realise this, and have provided HL2 with graphics that look 'great', not 'ground-breaking'. From the reviews garnered, it also seems that HL2 plays better than anything that has preceded it, hence the high scores.

When you're in a firefight with several combine, and a huge strider, with explosions going off all around you, and your npc mates dying, trust me, if you're looking at shadows or clipping errors, you're not really playing the game for fun.

I totaly agree Parrot, im 32, and space invaders was my first game i played in any arcade i could find!i think some younger ppl get anal by going on and on about graphics and the not so perfect textures and clipping..blah, blah. Just play the game and enjoy the experience!

 

[hunter-killer25]

i'm 15 and all i want to do is BASH SOME HEAD with a cast iron radiator god, i dont care about the graphics, its all about the smashing lol

 

[Logic]

I'm 19. I do think graphics are important, but not in a technical sense. Gaming is a very visual medium and as such offers a lot of opportunity for artistic presentation. As an example, I like the graphics in the old 2d platformer 'Another World' better than many recent games. They're not technically better (hell, they're 2D, 256 colour, at 320x200 I think), but they are utilised in such a way that they really contribute to the gaming experience - they create an immersive atmosphere. Obviously games don't need strong visual presentation to be fun, but as technology gets better, there is an opportunity to take the experience to another level through visuals. That means nothing if the game doesn't play well, though.

Unfortunately many developers do think that good technology equals good graphics, and meanwhile poor art direction, and often poor gameplay, results in a complete waste of that technology. I'm quite pleased with Valve's direction, as they seem to be right on the ball as far as the art goes, focusing on a stylised gritty realism, and using the technology to support that direction (like dirty\murky water), rather than for the sake of it.

With that said, though, I've been thorougly immersed in games comprised entirely of text, so I wouldn't say I'm a graphically demanding gamer. Shadow bugs etc aren't going to impact on my experience of HL2 at all.

 

[SpuD]

I'm 32. That means I was leaving school just as many of the people posting here were being born. Or even conceived!

Anyhow, I see many threads arguing about the graphics in HL2, and for the life of me I can't understand why so many people get obsessed with this. I remember playing Space Invaders in my local arcade machine, when I needed a box to see the screen. I remember being flabbergasted by the coloured aliens, and not being bothered that much when I realised it was just coloured sellophane strips glued to the back of the plastic shield that protected the screen. What was important was that shooting aliens was fun.

I went right through the ranks, Commodore PET, Vic-20, Tandy TRS-80, C64, Amiga, 486, Pentium, Pentium2, AMD K5, etc etc. Anyone here remember playing Ultima Underworlds 1 and 2? Remember the tiny little screen you moved around in, the rest of the view being taken up by icons and chat windows?

Those who think that graphics matter, please, take it from somebody who has been playing games a great deal longer than you. They don't. What matters is playability. Thats the essence of a game. Football matches would look great if naked page-3 models were playing, but the game itself would be crap, and after a while nobody would pay to see it. Computer games are just the same. You can have as much bling on the screen as you like, but if it doesn't play well, it will very quickly become forgotten.

From the look of the Binks I've seen, it seems that Valve also realise this, and have provided HL2 with graphics that look 'great', not 'ground-breaking'. From the reviews garnered, it also seems that HL2 plays better than anything that has preceded it, hence the high scores.

When you're in a firefight with several combine, and a huge strider, with explosions going off all around you, and your npc mates dying, trust me, if you're looking at shadows or clipping errors, you're not really playing the game for fun.

Exactly, i dont mind a few clipping errors, i dont look for them, I dont notice them, i play the game for the game, not to criticize small and unimportant glitches

 

[City17Citizen01]

I don't think you can ever ask to much from developers. The sky is the limit in my world, of course that sky is held in place by monitary and time constraints but none the less I still always want more than they can ever give. If ever you find yourself complacent in this industry your going to become stale. This industry is built on dreams and a 'whats next' ideology of sorts. People who shale out cash for highend hardware are what is driving the entire industry, these people always want faster, bigger, better (it's a mentality or a mindset)... If not for them CSS would be the mark of a next gen games. (five year old gameplay with new textures and a physics engine) <physics engines are so UT2k3>.

I'm 25, I have had my fare share of game systems/consoles/pcs/uprights/handhelds... My first was an intellevision(sp?) I played bump'n'jump, burgertime and pitfall for thousands of hours. Iv'e seen the start and I know there will never be a finish, I'm not going to sit back and pat devs on the back and say take three years off, you did a great job, breathe and stay away from the fourms for awhile.

I want my F'N' holodeck today! damn fanboys who say stories and gameplay are what are important can stick to playing DnD and dice games, make your own damn story 'in game'.

Expecting highend fx, kick arse gameplay ect... can never be topped out, it's only unreasonable when ppl are unwilling to buy the hardware needed to deliver these things, and thats really were the industry is going to stalemate. So get out there and upgrade, buy the game, don't steal it...and keep the industry on it's feet and always demand more than they can give. Be happy and play well untill the next game comes along. Tune into the hum of the future and tune out these betty crocker story time smacktards who moan and plaster about fx not being everything cause they ain't doing anything more than a barnacle on the bow along for the ride.

Edit: about that 512MB Doom3 thing,... I thought 3dlabs had a dual proc 512MB ddr3 card coming out?

 

[DarkStar]

Football matches would look great if naked page-3 models were playing, but the game itself would be crap, and after a while nobody would pay to see it. Computer games are just the same.

Haha. Good analogy.

 

[City17Citizen01]

Haha. Good analogy.

Yeah but it could go either way. I don't like football cause I don't like the game, I really don't want to see a bunch of overgrown jocks all sweaty and piling on each other. Now if the same game was played by hot naked chicks, even if they couldn't play, I'd still be more apt to wach a game when they are sweaty and in piles than the aforementioned senario. Hot naked chicks in piles never gets old.. Why you think the pron industry is so huge? And how do we know they couldn't play? everyone has to start somewhere, they can learn, I'll bet if they got payed as much as an NFL star lotz would join up.

 

[MrMetroid]

Kids today are little idiots and will play anything with bright lights and flashy things. Just look at the popularity of EA games and stuff like that.

 

[zex]

Madden isn't a bad game

 

[Letters]

Madden isn't a bad game

If by bad, you mean evil, then I disagree... Madden games can't get quite violent. :O (Not in-game, sillies...)

 

[MrMetroid]

Madden should of died a long time ago. The guys got complete turkeys lodged in his arteries.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

i can somewhat relate to the original poster (gee i hope im not giving away my age here ) in his views of graphics and playability and ya know what? hes right.

the HL engine lasted six years through mods... not because the graphics were pretty, but because of how well made it was from a gameplay standpoint compared to games of HL's generation.

 

[Bing_Oh]

http://193.151.73.87/games/lemmings/

Reaperman, I must say...THANK YOU! :cheers: My boss, on the other hand, will probably hate you. This is gonna put a serious dent in productivity... :E